3 State. In this case, the words have no impact on the structure of the ruling and the determination of the result. 12. Regardless of the wording, it is evident that there were extremely grave acts; that the State is internationally responsible for these acts, considering the identity of those who perpetrated them, and that it is pertinent to order measures that are adapted to these circumstances. Evidently, the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility through acts that can be characterized technically as confession and acquiescence should not be overlooked – and the judgment recognizes this. Moreover, I note that, when presenting the case, the Inter-American Commission used concepts that possess – as I have also maintained in several opinions – their own technical and juridical connotations, and did not merely allude to an acknowledgement of State responsibility. 13. With regard to the last point, I share the opinion expressed in the judgment concerning the juridical, ethical and political value of the acts of acknowledgement, confession and acquiescence. They manifest a healthy attitude for the exercise of human rights that will permit the development of new and better phases – at least, we hope so. I recognize that these acts correspond to decisions of the States themselves, in which the Court cannot and should not intervene; the Court merely receives and examines them for the purposes of its own jurisdiction. But, at the same time, as I have stated on different occasions, I am pleased, that the number of acknowledgements, confessions and acquiescences have increased; by definition, they denote improved access to the truth about the facts, which is of interest to all. Therefore, I have underscored this fact in the reports I make, as President of the Court, to the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs and General Assembly. 14. I also note that, under the inter-American system for the protection of human rights – and within this, in the proceedings before the Inter-American Court – the acknowledgement made by the State that contributes to establishing the truth and resolving the dispute does not necessarily encapsulate all the truth or settle the dispute completely. Accordingly, it is never an insurmountable obstacle that hides some facts in exchange for revealing others. 15. When the State party has made an acknowledgement or acquiescence, the Court retains the power, which it usually exercises, to continue the proceedings in order to make progress in defining the facts and providing satisfaction to the victims. It hears testimonies and expert opinions, it gathers new evidence, and in the judgment it refers to the proven facts. It never merely declares that the dispute has ceased and closes the case. The State has frequently shown willingness to endow the proceedings on human rights with this move towards the safeguard of human rights that could seem unnecessary in other types of proceedings, but is congruent with the purpose of the inter-American system, which is formed by the States themselves, as guarantors, and the Inter-American Court. *** 16. The judgment refers to “State terrorism.” Another ruling delivered during the session when the Inter-American Court deliberated on the Case of Goiburú: the judgment in the Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., alludes to a “State policy” consisting in the generalized repression of opponents. I have no reservations – more exactly, I am in full agreement – with the Court’s findings and decisions regarding the violation of rights in both cases and the characteristics of these violations.